Skip to main content

WEScover: selection between clinical whole exome sequencing and gene panel testing

Abstract

Background

Whole exome sequencing (WES) is widely adopted in clinical and research settings; however, one of the practical concerns is the potential false negatives due to incomplete breadth and depth of coverage for several exons in clinically implicated genes. In some cases, a targeted gene panel testing may be a dependable option to ascertain true negatives for genomic variants in known disease-associated genes. We developed a web-based tool to quickly gauge whether all genes of interest would be reliably covered by WES or whether targeted gene panel testing should be considered instead to minimize false negatives in candidate genes.

Results

WEScover is a novel web application that provides an intuitive user interface for discovering breadth and depth of coverage across population-scale WES datasets, searching either by phenotype, by targeted gene panel(s) or by gene(s). Moreover, the application shows metrics from the Genome Aggregation Database to provide gene-centric view on breadth of coverage.

Conclusions

WEScover allows users to efficiently query genes and phenotypes for the coverage of associated exons by WES and recommends use of panel tests for the genes with potential incomplete coverage by WES.

Background

As the cost of whole exome sequencing (WES) drops, WES is replacing targeted gene panel testing [1, 2]. WES, for example, is superior in measuring the ever-growing number of driver and passenger mutations in diverse genes across different cancer types as well as increasing awareness of oligogenic contribution to most genetic disorders [3]. However, WES is not capturing all exons in clinically implicated genes in the human genome [4, 5] and whole genome sequencing (WGS) faces a similar challenge for some genes including highly polymorphic ones. As such, population-scale aggregation of WES and WGS clearly shows limited breadth of coverage for some clinically implicated genes [4, 6].

Wang and colleagues found that a hereditary eye disease enrichment panel could identify pathogenic and likely pathogenic mutations in 41.2% of patients with inherited retinal dystrophies compared to 33.0% by WES [7]. In some cases, WES did not capture pathogenic variants in patients with inherited retinal diseases and candidate gene panels could suggest genetic causes [8]. Another study showed that a target-enriched exome sequencing approach was able to detect 99.7% known genetic variants responsible for neuromuscular disorders, comparing to 97.1% and 99.2% identified by two different WES analyses [9]. Interestingly, a cost analysis of next-generation sequencing using Illumina platforms showed that estimated costs per sample for targeted gene panels (€333) were less than half of WES (€792) [10]. Therefore, gene panel testing, whether for a single gene or for hundreds of candidate genes, is still a clinically useful measure when false negatives due to suboptimal coverage of WES and WGS are likely.

Yet it is difficult to predict whether the exons that are known to harbor disease-associated variants would be covered with sufficient per-site depth of coverage to reliably call variants or not. There have been efforts to identify regions or genes poorly covered by targeted panels or WES. ExomeSlicer provides per-exon depth of coverage based on 1,932 clinical exome sequencing samples so that users can identify regions with incomplete coverage for genes of interest [11]. Ebbert and colleagues systemically investigated the genes—including disease genes—that were difficult to analyze with standard short-read sequencing technologies [12]. These tools provide useful measures on which genes might not be sufficiently covered by WES but lack means to suggest alternatives.

WEScover provides the advantage of summarizing coverage information on clinically implicated genes along with the information of gene panel tests for the genes. It can provide a basis to recommend the use of gene panel tests for the genes that are poorly covered by WES. Also, WEScover provides WES coverage stratified by continental-level population, highlighting population-specific differences in exome coverage. With a self-reported ancestry of the patient, users could find the coverage of a given gene among the matching population group, compared to other datasets such as Genome Aggregation Database (gnomAD) project [13] that only provides global mean coverage across all exomes. Links to gnomAD are also provided such that global coverage levels across large scale of samples can be checked.

Implementation

WEScover is developed to assist decision making for biomedical investigators by providing empirical measure of breadth and depth of coverage in WES for genes of interest. Users can find global coverage summary of the exomes from the 1000 Genomes Project (1KGP) phase 3 data [14] (N = 2,504) as well as between-population differences. For each gene, WEScover also provides a list of related genetic tests from the National Institutes of Health Genetic Testing Registry (GTR) [15] so that investigators can quickly search for alternatives when the gene may not be well-covered by WES.

Coverage metric in WEScover

The average read depth, the most widely used coverage metric, describes how many times each locus is supported by effectively aligned short-reads in WES on average. However, given the variance in the efficiency of exon capture baits, some coding regions are incompletely covered even though the average read depth is sufficiently high for the majority of exons [4]. Then, the absence of genetic variants could include false negatives. To address this issue, WEScover provides breadth of coverage at different levels of depth of coverage for each gene.

The breadth of coverage for a gene model is calculated as a proportion of protein coding sequences where the read depth is above a given threshold compared to total length of exons. For a gene with protein coding sequences of 300 base pairs (bps), the breadth of coverage at 10 × for the gene is 90% if the read depths for 270 out of 300 bps are above 10x. The breadth of coverage varies by the target level of read depth at each position and decreases as a higher depth of coverage is required. Figure 1 illustrates the breadth of coverage at different read depth levels. WEScover calculates the breadth of coverage for each of different transcript models for a protein coding gene. The list and coordinates for all genes and transcripts are based on the Consensus Coding Sequence (CCDS) [16] (we used release 15 and 21 for human reference genome assembly version 37 (GRCh37) and 38 (GRCh38), respectively).

Fig. 1
figure1

An illustration of breadth of coverage for a gene. It shows an example of a gene consisting of three exons (Exon 1, Exon 2, Exon 3). The short reads mapped to each exon are shown above the corresponding exons. Per-locus depth of coverage is equivalent to the count of short reads above each position in exon. Boxes ‘A’ and ‘B’ denote regions (positions) in the gene, where every locus has 3 or more reads. The breadth of coverage at 3 × is calculated as proportions of ‘A’ and ‘B’ within the gene (shown in the lower-left). Likewise, the breadth of coverage at 5 × is calculated as proportion of box ‘C’–every locus has 5 or more reads–in gene (shown in lower-right)

Global coverage and variation across populations

We calculated breadth of coverage for each gene at 8 different levels for read depths – 5x, 10x, 15x, 20x, 25x, 30x, 50 × and 100x – using the exomes from the 1000 Genomes Project (1KGP) phase 3 [14]. We used two sets of alignment files mapped to two human reference genome assemblies: GRCh37 and GRCh38. WEScover shows the average breadth of coverage across exomes in the 1KGP, as well as minimum and maximum values in 1KGP. WEScover also provides average breadth of coverage for each of the 5 population groups in 1KGP: Africa (AFR), American (AMR), East Asian (EAS), European (EUR), and South Asian (SAS). Each population may have different sequence context across the genome which affects exome capture efficiency and is reflected, in turn, in breadth and depth of coverage. The statistics from one-way ANOVA test, Kolmogorov–Smirnov test and Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference test were provided to compare the average breadth of coverage among populations.

In an effort to have coverage data out of a larger collection of exomes and diverse exome capture kits, we made use of the coverage across 125,748 exomes available from gnomAD release 2.1. However, we were not able to calculate breadth of coverage from gnomAD exomes because of the lack of individual-level coverage data. Instead gnomAD provided the coverage summary, the proportion of samples over the given read depth at each locus, which we utilized to visualize the depth and extent of coverage of the gene (Fig. 2d).

Fig. 2
figure2

Query interface and outputs in WEScover. a The initial screen for user query. Users can specify genes of interest (‘Gene symbol’) directly. Otherwise, phenotype (‘GTR Phenotype’ or ‘HPO Phenotype’) or gene panel test name (‘GPT name’) can be used to search for related genes. Lastly, the expected depth of coverage level (‘Depth of coverage’) and human genome reference assembly version used in calculating coverage (‘Human reference genome assembly version’) need to be selected. b The result summary screen for the selected genes. Clicking ‘Detail’ button (under the column ‘Action’) opens a window with more information such as breadth of coverage per continent-level population, its distribution in different populations (c), coverage value from gnomAD exomes (d), differences across populations, and list of gene panels including the transcript for selected gene. c The violin plot shows the distribution of coverage metrics from 1KGP exomes in each of the five continent-level populations. The black horizontal line denotes the global average value from gnomAD exomes. d The coverage plot (upper part) shows the per-locus coverage metric from gnomAD exomes across the gene. The per-locus coverage metric values are shown at various levels from 5x (red) to 100x (blue). The transcript(s) for the gene is shown beneath the coverage plot: light blue blocks for untranslated regions and dark blue blocks for exons. To highlight the coverage on exons, the introns are scaled down to the same length. The lengths of exons are maintained. It may show multiple transcripts for the gene, even if a single CCDS ID was selected

Gene panel testing as an alternative to WES

We collected the registered genetic tests listed in the National Institutes of Health Genetic Testing Registry (GTR) [15] to inform users of available genetic tests. Additionally, WEScover enables users to query phenotype to list candidate genes by integrating associated Human Phenotype Ontology (HPO) terms [17] for each genetic test from GTR. As of writing, a total of 59,928 genetic tests for both clinical and research usage in GTR (last accessed on Feb. 28th, 2021) were compiled in WEScover, including 32,390 CLIA-certified ones. A total of 6,097 putative disease-associated genes were linked to one or more of registered tests.

Results

Using the relationship between phenotypes listed either in GTR or HPO, genetic test names from GTR and genes, we created a database and a query interface using R Shiny package [18]. The initial query interface allows users to enter phenotype, genetic test name (retrieved from the GTR website), or official gene symbol(s) of interest (Fig. 2a). The phenotype can either be as listed in GTR or be standard terms from HPO. It also provides the choice of target depth of coverage: 5x, 10x, 15x, 20x, 25x, 30x, 50x, and 100x. As default choice, we use breadth of coverage at > 20x – a threshold sufficient to achieve 99% sensitivity for detecting single nucleotide variants [19]. Finally, users can also choose the human reference genome assembly version: GRCh37 and GRCh38 (latest). For each gene matching the query, the global mean of breadth of coverage along with its maximum and minimum values are shown in a table in an ascending order of global means (Fig. 2b). We also perform a one-way analysis of variance to test differences between coverage means of populations and report the test statistics and p-values in this table. The button at the end of each row opens a window containing further details about the coverage of the gene. The panel first shows a table with the mean breadth of coverage stratified by continent-level populations. The second tab shows a violin plot for the breadth of coverage stratified by continent-level populations (Fig. 2c). We also provided the mean gnomAD coverage metric (i.e., mean fraction of samples over X read depth across every position of the gene) for comparison with 1KGP exomes. Although the mean gnomAD coverage metric measures different value based on larger scale of samples across diverse exome platforms, it correlates well with the mean breadth of coverage (see Additional file 1). A plot for coverage at each genomic position of the selected gene, based on gnomAD coverage data, is shown next to the violin plot (Fig. 2d). Additionally, we provide two results from tests of differences between each pair of populations: Kolmogorov–Smirnov test to compare between cumulative distributions, and Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference test for pairwise comparison of means. Lastly, the panel reports all genetic tests involving the gene. Insufficient coverage in both projects, 1KGP and gnomAD, should inform the user that the candidate genes may not be sufficiently covered in WES and that targeted gene panel tests should be considered to minimize potential false negatives.

We further investigated the distribution of breadths of coverage at each per-locus target depth and human reference genome assembly versions (Fig. 3). The median across all genes for global mean breadth of coverage at 20 × was 93.3%; that is, for majority of CCDS genes, 93.3% of gene was covered by 20 or more reads on average exomes. Due, in part, to the older design of exome capture targets in the 1KGP exomes, the breadth of coverage values in WEScover are better be taken as lower bounds. The trends of distribution were consistent across genome assembly versions in spite of the differences between CCDS releases. Of note, genes with very low (< 10%) mean breadth of coverage were observed across all cases, even at low depths such as 5 × or 10x, suggesting that the exome capture targets for 1KGP did not cover all genes and their exons in the CCDS releases that we used in WEScover. These genes can be easily identified by checking coverage metric values from gnomAD exomes. If a gene is sufficiently covered by more recent exome data, it would have good coverage value among gnomAD exomes. Thus, WEScover shows both the mean gnomAD coverage metric and coverage plot over exons of the gene. We encourage users to check gnomAD browser for the genes with suboptimal coverage in WEScover before committing to gene panel testing.

Fig. 3
figure3

Distribution of mean breadth of coverage across various target read depths and genome assembly versions. The y-axis represents the average breadth of coverage across 1KGP exomes, for each gene. Each boxplot represents the distribution across all CCDS genes at read depths from 5 × to 100x. At each read depth, the distributions of values from each genome assembly versions (GRCh37 and GRCh38) are shown as separate boxplots. The overall breadth of coverage levels of genes is highest at 5 × and decreases as read depths are increased. Given the same read depth level, little difference is observed between genome assembly versions. Lower tails of boxplots–especially at low read depths as 5 × or 10x–indicate genes with poor breadth of coverage in most of 1KGP exomes

There are two limitations of utilizing WEScover. Firstly, the breadth of coverage value (as well as gnomAD coverage metric) is not normalized for the factors generally contributing to exome coverage such as sequence context and GC contents. Such factors vary widely between genes and comparison of the values for one gene with another is beyond the proposed use of WEScover. Secondly, WEScover focuses on gene-level breadths of coverage and does not provide ways to search for specific variants and regions within genes.

Conclusions

WES and WGS provide comprehensive evaluation of diverse types of genomic variants in various conditions. However, users must be informed regarding possible false negatives due to incomplete breadth and depth of coverage, ideally from sequencing vendors. In such cases, a targeted gene panel test should be considered as a primary choice over the others. WEScover can guide users as to whether WES is appropriate for testing the genes of interest. Considering that many laboratories, especially clinical testing facilities, are slow in transition from the previous genome build (GRCh37), WEScover supports coverage summary for both GRCh37 and GRCh38. Together with information from GTR, which provides transparent and comprehensive list of genetic tests with indications, users can make an informed decision for testing genes prior to ordering genetic tests in clinical settings.

Availability and requirements


Project name: WEScover.


Project home page: https://tom.tch.harvard.edu/shinyapps/WEScover/


Project source code: https://github.com/bch-gnome/WEScover


Operating system: Platform independent.


Programming language: R Shiny.


Other requirements: WEScover requires the following R packages: shiny, shinythemes, DT, ggplot2, shinyjs, shinyBS, reshape2, RColorBrewer, fst, data.table, wiggleplotr, patchwork, ggpubr, dplyr and corrplot.


License: MIT.


Any restrictions to use by non-academics: None.

Availability of data and materials

Breadth of coverage data stratified by continent-level populations from 1000 Genomes Project (either in GRCh37 or GRCh38) are available for downloading on https://tom.tch.harvard.edu/shinyapps/WEScover/ under the ‘Data’ tab.

Abbreviations

WES:

Whole exome sequencing

WGS:

Whole genome sequencing

gnomAD:

Genome aggregation database

GTR:

Genetic testing registry

CCDS:

Consensus coding sequence

1KGP:

1000 Genomes project

HPO:

Human phenotype ontology

References

  1. 1.

    Stavropoulos DJ, Merico D, Jobling R, Bowdin S, Monfared N, Thiruvahindrapuram B, Nalpathamkalam T, Pellecchia G, Yuen RKC, Szego MJ et al: Whole genome sequencing expands diagnostic utility and improves clinical management in pediatric medicine. NPJ Genom Med 2016, 1.

  2. 2.

    Wang J, Gotway G, Pascual JM, Park JY. Diagnostic yield of clinical next-generation sequencing panels for epilepsy. JAMA Neurol. 2014;71(5):650–1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Chong JX, Buckingham KJ, Jhangiani SN, Boehm C, Sobreira N, Smith JD, Harrell TM, McMillin MJ, Wiszniewski W, Gambin T, et al. The genetic basis of mendelian phenotypes: discoveries, challenges, and opportunities. Am J Hum Genet. 2015;97(2):199–215.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Kong SW, Lee IH, Liu X, Hirschhorn JN, Mandl KD. Measuring coverage and accuracy of whole-exome sequencing in clinical context. Genet Med. 2018;20(12):1617–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Meienberg J, Zerjavic K, Keller I, Okoniewski M, Patrignani A, Ludin K, Xu Z, Steinmann B, Carrel T, Rothlisberger B, et al. New insights into the performance of human whole-exome capture platforms. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43(11):e76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Wang Q, Shashikant CS, Jensen M, Altman NS, Girirajan S. Novel metrics to measure coverage in whole exome sequencing datasets reveal local and global non-uniformity. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):885.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Wang L, Zhang J, Chen N, Wang L, Zhang F, Ma Z, Li G, Yang L: Application of whole exome and targeted panel sequencing in the clinical molecular diagnosis of 319 Chinese families with inherited retinal dystrophy and comparison study. Genes (Basel) 2018, 9(7).

  8. 8.

    Cho A, LimadeCarvalho JR, Tanaka AJ, Jauregui R, Levi SR, Bassuk AG, Mahajan VB, Tsang SH. Fundoscopy-directed genetic testing to re-evaluate negative whole exome sequencing results. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2020;15(1):32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Gorokhova S, Cerino M, Mathieu Y, Courrier S, Desvignes JP, Salgado D, Beroud C, Krahn M, Bartoli M. Comparing targeted exome and whole exome approaches for genetic diagnosis of neuromuscular disorders. Appl Transl Genom. 2015;7:26–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    van Nimwegen KJ, van Soest RA, Veltman JA, Nelen MR, van der Wilt GJ, Vissers LE, Grutters JP. Is the $1000 Genome as Near as We Think? A Cost Analysis of Next-Generation Sequencing. Clin Chem. 2016;62(11):1458–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Niazi R, Gonzalez MA, Balciuniene J, Evans P, Sarmady M, Abou Tayoun AN. The development and validation of clinical exome-based panels using exomeslicer: considerations and proof of concept using an epilepsy panel. J Mol Diagn. 2018;20(5):643–52.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Ebbert MTW, Jensen TD, Jansen-West K, Sens JP, Reddy JS, Ridge PG, Kauwe JSK, Belzil V, Pregent L, Carrasquillo MM, et al. Systematic analysis of dark and camouflaged genes reveals disease-relevant genes hiding in plain sight. Genome Biol. 2019;20(1):97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Lek M, Karczewski KJ, Minikel EV, Samocha KE, Banks E, Fennell T, O’Donnell-Luria AH, Ware JS, Hill AJ, Cummings BB, et al. Analysis of protein-coding genetic variation in 60,706 humans. Nature. 2016;536(7616):285–91.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    The 1000 Genomes Project Consortium, Auton A, Brooks LD, Durbin RM, Garrison EP, Kang HM, Korbel JO, Marchini JL, McCarthy S, McVean GA et al: A global reference for human genetic variation. Nature 2015, 526(7571):68–74.

  15. 15.

    Rubinstein WS, Maglott DR, Lee JM, Kattman BL, Malheiro AJ, Ovetsky M, Hem V, Gorelenkov V, Song G, Wallin C et al: The NIH genetic testing registry: a new, centralized database of genetic tests to enable access to comprehensive information and improve transparency. Nucleic Acids Res 2013, 41(Database issue):D925–935.

  16. 16.

    Pruitt KD, Harrow J, Harte RA, Wallin C, Diekhans M, Maglott DR, Searle S, Farrell CM, Loveland JE, Ruef BJ, et al. The consensus coding sequence (CCDS) project: identifying a common protein-coding gene set for the human and mouse genomes. Genome Res. 2009;19(7):1316–23.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Kohler S, Doelken SC, Mungall CJ, Bauer S, Firth HV, Bailleul-Forestier I, Black GC, Brown DL, Brudno M, Campbell J et al: The human phenotype ontology project: linking molecular biology and disease through phenotype data. Nucleic Acids Res 2014, 42(Database issue):D966–974.

  18. 18.

    shiny: Web Application Framework for R. R package version 1.3.2. [https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=shiny]

  19. 19.

    Meynert AM, Ansari M, FitzPatrick DR, Taylor MS. Variant detection sensitivity and biases in whole genome and exome sequencing. BMC Bioinformatics. 2014;15:247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

The design of WEScover, data collection, analysis, interpretation and writing of the manuscript were supported by grants from the Boston Children’s Hospital Precision Link Biobank and from the National Institutes of Health (R01MH107205, R24OD024622, U01TR002623 and U01HG007530).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

IHL and SWK generated the original breadth of coverage data summarized in WEScover. The source code of the web interface application was developed by WJA, IHL and CHF. SWK, IHL, YL and WJA prepared the manuscript. IHL, KDM and SWK drafted the manuscript and all authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sek Won Kong.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1

Portable Network Graphics. Comparison between exome coverage metrics for 1000 Genomes Project (1KGP) and for gnomAD. Each panel shows coverage metrics for genes (based on CCDS release 15) measured with the chosen read depth (X): X=5x, 10x, 15x, 20x, 25x, 30x, 50x, and 100x. At each panel, x-axis represents the breadth of coverage for a gene (the fraction of gene which have X or higher read depth at a position) averaged over 2,504 exomes from 1KGP. On the other hand, y-axis shows the gnomAD exome coverage metric for a locus (the fraction of gnomAD exomes which have X or higher read depth at a position) averaged over all exons in a gene. Both values correlate well while the metric for gnomAD tends to have higher value than that for 1KGP. Also note that part of CCDS genes not included as exome target region for 1KGP have good metric value (>0.9) with gnomAD exomes (dots with x=0).

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, IH., Lin, Y., Alvarez, W.J. et al. WEScover: selection between clinical whole exome sequencing and gene panel testing. BMC Bioinformatics 22, 259 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12859-021-04178-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Genetic testing
  • False negative
  • Coverage
  • Whole exome sequencing
  • Gene panel testing